First One on the Dole Ought to Be the First Candidate for a Diet : Israel: Its huge share of our foreign-aid pie should be cut, especially with so many needy countries begging for crumbs.

Momentous developments in Eastern Europe and Latin America have placed compelling demands upon the United States for its foreign-aid dollars at a time when huge deficits have forced sizeable budget reductions and heavily burdened the American taxpayer. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole has brought this conflict into focus for the American public with his bold statement that we must consider cutting the allotments of some countries to benefit others.

A serious reexamination of the way in which the United States allocates its foreign aid has been sorely needed for many years.

Five countries now receive two-thirds of the U.S. foreign-aid budget. One of the key causes of this inequity has been Congress’ practice of stipulating that specific sums be given to particular countries, without regard to the effect on U.S. commitments elsewhere. In recent years, this practice has tied the hands of the Administration and resulted in the termination of many necessary but unprotected assistance programs worldwide at a time when aggregate funding levels for U.S. foreign aid have declined.

Dole has proposed a 5% cut in aid to the five largest recipients--Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey. While all five should be expected to bear an equitable share of any future cuts in the aid budget, four of these countries share certain important characteristics that would justify current levels of aid. All four are populous nations with low per-capita GNP and millions of their people living at bare subsistence levels or on the edge of poverty. And all four have developing economies with a need for massive start-up investments in basic industries and infrastructure.

Israel is the exception. It is a wealthy, developed nation with a high per-capita GNP and a high standard of living. It also maintains, at great expense, an enormous military establishment that far surpasses that of any combination of its neighbors, and that includes chemical and nuclear weaponry and ballistic-missile technology. A prudent and equitable allocation of aid would require a larger reduction in assistance to Israel, relative to other recipients.

The disproportionate Israeli share of U.S. foreign aid represents an outlay of $698 for every Israeli citizen. Compare that to the 1990 allocation for the other four: Egypt, $43 per capita; Turkey, $11; Philippines, $8, and Pakistan, $6.

Since 1985 at least $3 billion a year in U.S. economic and military aid has been allocated for Israel. This enormous sum, however, accounts for only part of the benefits Israel receives. This year, as in the past, Israel was the only recipient to acquire its aid in a lump-sum transfer at the beginning of the fiscal year. Unlike other countries, which must spend their military aid in the United States, Israel is allowed to spend $400 million a year in Israel itself. U.S. law also stipulates that funds allocated to Israel be not less than the annual debt repayment from Israel to the United States government, a perquisite that many poorer nations would welcome. Congress appropriated $7.5 million that Israel can use as foreign assistance to third countries. And, from accounts earmarked for migration and refugee assistance, Congress stipulated that $25 million was to be made available to Israel this year to assist the Soviet and other refugees resettling in Israel, though many other nations are experiencing much more pressing refugee problems.

How Israel uses those refugee assistance funds may raise serious questions about its commitment to peace. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir recently implied that Israel must retain the occupied West Bank to accommodate the influx of Soviet Jews, a position that is unquestionably contrary to U.S. policy.

Israel in recent years has been conducting numerous activities that undermine its claim to especially large amounts of U.S. foreign assistance. Among the most glaring examples: Israeli espionage against the United States; Israeli involvement in transferring ballistic-missile technology to South Africa and its nuclear cooperation with Pretoria; Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Israel’s continued occupation of portions of Lebanon as well as the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights and its human-rights abuses of Arabs under the occupation; Israeli failure to advance the peace process regarding the West Bank and Gaza; and the involvement of Israelis in notorious activities detrimental to U.S. interests in Colombia and Panama.

Under the terms of U.S. law, these actions ought to disqualify Israel from receiving any U.S. assistance whatsoever. Even if the continuation of aid to Israel is deemed in the national interest, such aid should be used as leverage to persuade Israel to adhere to the basic standards of human rights and international law, and to meet the requirements of U.S. laws. U.S. aid should not be given to Israel or any other recipient unconditionally.

Sen. Dole has done the American taxpayer a service by calling for a reexamination of U.S. aid allocations. But that reexamination should go beyond proposals to cut aid by simple formulas; it should include an assessment of whether foreign aid, which is an indispensable and worthy mechanism, is being used for purposes that are beneficial or detrimental to U.S. interests. With so many countries desperate for scarce U.S. assistance, not one dollar should be wasted.